On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 09:27:45AM -0400, John Ferlan wrote:
Coverity complains that the comparison:
if (nfds && nfds > ((int)!!sock_path + (int)!!sock_path_ro))
could mean 'sock_path' is NULL. Later in virNetSocketNewListenUNIX
there's a direct dereference of path in the error path:
if (path[0] != '@')
A bit of sleuthing proves that upon entry to daemonSetupNetworking
there is no way for 'sock_path' to be NULL since daemonUnixSocketPaths
will set up 'sock_file' (although it may not set up 'sock_file_ro')
in all 3 paths.
So to keep Coverity quiet - add an sa_assert prior to the call.
Signed-off-by: John Ferlan <jferlan@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
daemon/libvirtd.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/daemon/libvirtd.c b/daemon/libvirtd.c
index 05ee50e..028145e 100644
--- a/daemon/libvirtd.c
+++ b/daemon/libvirtd.c
@@ -502,6 +502,7 @@ static int daemonSetupNetworking(virNetServerPtr srv,
return -1;
}
+ sa_assert(sock_path);
if (nfds && nfds > ((int)!!sock_path + (int)!!sock_path_ro)) {
Well, if sock_path cannot be NULL, then why not change it to:
if (nfds > (1 + !!sock_path_ro)) {
or something like that?
Martin
VIR_ERROR(_("Too many (%u) FDs passed from caller"), nfds);
return -1;
--
1.9.3
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list